Syndicated Columnists

W.Va.’s missing upper class

August 25, 2012

The phrase, "upper class", is provocative. Among conservatives it's heard as an alarming call to class warfare. Among liberals, particularly those sympathetic to the "Occupy" movement, "upper class" is shorthand for the oligarchical 1 percent that they believe controls America's wealth and institutions.

The substitute phrase, "rich people" or simply, "the rich", is almost as provocative, which is why Republicans in congress have banned it and replaced it with the pleasantly scented, "job creators", a euphemism of startling inaccuracy that reminds us that the point of euphemism is to mask unpleasantness even at the price of distortion.

But, whether you call them "the upper class", "rich people," or "job creators," there is one abiding fact - West Virginia doesn't have many of them. This isn't an ideological point. It's a statistical one.

Consider that if you were to equalize the population of Connecticut, the nation's wealthiest state, with that of West Virginia, the poorest or next-to-poorest state, Connecticut's richest 1 percent of households would have as much income as West Virginia's richest 22 percent. If you don't bother equalizing the populations and simply take them as they are, just the top 2 percent of Connecticut households, about 27,000 families, have an aggregate income equal to that of all of West Virginia's 750,000 families.

The implications of this inequality are profound economically, socially, and culturally. And they should be politically, but strangely are not.

The presence of the wealthy and very wealthy creates demand for products, services, cultural and educational opportunities, entertainment, and even environmental conditions that have a beneficial halo effect for those who live in their proximity. Restaurants, theaters, schools, galleries, and retail stores contribute to vibrant and diverse communities. Even though most of us cannot afford to take advantage of these opportunities as often as the wealthy, we can afford to do so sometimes and wouldn't be able to at all if it weren't for the regular patronage of the well endowed.

The presence of wealthy people also tends to produce a cleaner, healthier environment and those in their proximity enjoy the benefits as well, which is among the reasons that the wealthy and those around them have noticeably longer life spans.

This isn't to say that all good things derive from rich people or that their presence has only good effects. But, we need look no farther than West Virginia to see the kind of society that their near absence creates.

In contrast to the diverse and vibrant places in which the wealthy reside, West Virginia is economically, culturally, and socially bland and depressed.

When people describe West Virginia as being unusually homogeneous they're usually making reference to our lack of racial diversity. But, they could just as easily be talking about the age distribution of our population, which is concentrated in early old age, educational attainment, which is concentrated at the high school level and below, cultural and artistic opportunities, of which we have the fewest in the nation, and our environment, which is among the nation's most toxic.

The result is a comparatively barren place that is first and foremost an industrial zone in which the presence of people is tolerated, but only so long as they don't complain about toxins in their environment or interfere with corporate interests. It's not surprising that wealthy people almost invariably choose to live elsewhere.

West Virginia's lack of wealthy residents also has political implications. One of the great political battles currently raging in Washington and between West Virginia's congressional candidates is whether the Bush-era tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year should be extended.

Republicans including Senatorial candidate, John Raese, Congressman David McKinley of West Virginia's first district and Shelley Moore Capito of the second, say they should. Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Congressman Nick Joe Rahall of the third district say they shouldn't. Meanwhile, Sen. Joe Manchin wanders in his usual fog of political calculation.

What's fascinating is that West Virginia's lack of wealthy residents makes the outcome of the debate almost irrelevant to the state. With only a little more than 1 percent of West Virginia families making more than $250,000 a year, not many will be affected by the tax cut, nor will West Virginia's economy. We are far more likely to feel the effects of the drawbacks if the reduction is extended. The federal deficit will increase as will pressure to cut federal entitlement programs upon which West Virginia is more dependent than other places.

On the other hand, in Connecticut, where more than 10% of families make more than $250,000, the benefit of the tax cut for the wealthy will be much greater. For every dollar the average West Virginia family saves as a result of the tax cut extension, the average Connecticut family will save $10. And for every dollar that the tax cut pumps into West Virginia's economy, Connecticut's economy will receive $22.

This means that the already doubtful and factually unsupportable claim that reducing taxes on the wealthy fuels job and income growth for working Americans is being replaced by the even more laughable claim that cutting taxes on rich people in Connecticut will generate jobs and income in West Virginia.

A few years ago Thomas Frank wrote a book, "What's the matter with Kansas?", in which he wondered why Kansans, who are famously conservative, consistently vote for candidates whose economic policies put Kansas at a disadvantage. The same question should be asked of West Virginia's Republicans in congress.